Non serialized firearms are not "Arms" under the 2A(??)

[moose]

What about old 22's that never had serial numbers either?

ETA: OK, I read about the historical firearms parts and all I got was more confused.

 

[Yarome]

Are they trying to go after parts kits?

Or is this another attempt at 80%s?

That judges ruling, no. The case was only pertaining to a specific individual in possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number. Challenging that particular charge under 2A protection.

So not specifically all "ghost guns", but the bent logic still applies and sure wouldn't want to see other judges adopting the same. Basically, any untraceable firearm is both "dangerous and unusual" (fails the common use test) and do not fall under the 2A protections.

 

[OneArgus]

Without sounding like a conspiracy theorist.


In reality, most firearms in history we made, were private custom and by smiths.
Only much later by companies and volume. But at one time allot were private made.


There is a guy if I recall from NWFA I think was Sam or Andy Was a blackpowder guy.
They would know if what I am saying is accurate, but my laymen's view is.
Since the 2nd Was made during the times of flint locks and alike.
And adopted by Congress the 2nd was reaffirmed in 1939, so if I recall allowing Gov to arm the FBI.
this action was presented due to the Right To Bear Arms.
But are not by definition, black powder rifles, undocumented and non-serial ?

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I agree with that sentiment, but, how does simply removing a number suddenly make something "dangerous and unusual"?

Just a guess, but maybe because of the ATF's favorite word: Intent As in they would argue that the only reason to remove a SN was to hamper LEO's ability to trace a weapon, and the only reason you would want to do that is that it is your intent to use it in a crime and do not want it traced back to you which fits the definition of not commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.
Pretty solid 1960's Dragnet thinking but that is when the law regarding SN's was written

Then there is the "it's just silly"...put two identical guns side by side, one with numbers, one without, and lemme know which one is more dangerous.

If you have tried to look for a definition of "Dangerous and unusual" you have probably discovered there really isn't one, but if you were to examine the "text, history, and tradition" of determining if a firearm was D&U, I would say that a safe definition would be "Used by minorities and poor people"

 

[ilostmypswrd]

Ghost guns, ooh scary:

You can not in fact find a more moronic person then that, I pity the fool.

 

[Yarome]

Without sounding like a conspiracy theorist.


In reality, most firearms in history we made, were private custom and by smiths.
Only much later by companies and volume. But at one time allot were private made.


There is a guy if I recall from NWFA I think was Sam or Andy Was a blackpowder guy.
They would know if what I am saying is accurate, but my laymen's view is.
Since the 2nd Was made during the times of flint locks and alike.
And adopted by Congress the 2nd was reaffirmed in 1939, so if I recall allowing Gov to arm the FBI.
this action was presented due to the Right To Bear Arms.
But are not by definition, black powder rifles, undocumented and non-serial ?

If I get the jist... you questioning if serialization of PMF's is supported by history... which you would be correct that it's not. That's how 922k was challenged under the Bruen analysis and they could only reach the conclusion that it was unconstitutional.

Black powder firearms though are a special class already recognized not to require serialization so 922k doesn't apply, but the principle is basically the same. Serials were not required then and that's why 922k's requirement that "modern firearms" have them is unconstitutional under strict scrutiny. Trying to argue it simply on BP's exclusions... that in theory... separate the class of firearm is valid, but legally a fairly weak argument.

Just for ghits and siggles... this judges determination could also apply to BP firearms. Granted they have special protections, but if a gun grabber wanted to be a d*ck and try to make them illegal... or require serialization... the same argument could be made that they are not "arms" under the 2A.

Good things the judge is just spouting BS, anyway, hu. The mental exercise of how it "could" be applied simply makes his ruling all the more ridiculous.

 

[ma96782]

Rrrrright.....imagine if......
ALL progress/innovation/firearm development and ideas......was the exclusive purview of ONLY the Big Gun Manufacturers?

"Blasphemy, I say!"

John M. Browning

And what about the many others like.....
William B. Ruger
Horace Smith
Daniel B. Wesson, etc....etc.....

Yeah.....Picture the ATF raiding their workshops.?

And what about?
David M. Williams (aka: "Carbine Williams").
Hummmm.......Soooo??? Invented by a "convicted felon" AND, I'd bet that his invention/proto type/example didn't have a serial number.

Aloha, Mark

PS........

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

John M. Browning

 

[Yarome]

Just a guess, but maybe because of the ATF's favorite word: Intent As in they would argue that the only reason to remove a SN was to hamper LEO's ability to trace a weapon, and the only reason you would want to do that is that it is your intent to use it in a crime and do not want it traced back to you which fits the definition of not commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

That's profiling.... and racist.
(Are those the right buzz words the leftists use??)

That's not entirely inaccurate, but the test is for type of firearm and not any particular characteristic.. is it not? IE., we don't say that pink hello kitty AR's are not commonly in use so they are no longer "arms" and protected by the 2A. Right? Intent is subjective, but I get the whole idea. It's just not sufficient grounds to void 2A protections. Intent may subject a person to criminal charges, but that is completely separate from the 2A.

I would hazard a guess that if it were not "illegal" to remove them and that fact was known to all... there would be backorders on $3.....$30 hand files across the nation.

 

[RX-79G]

Saying that a gun with no serial number isn't a firearm under 2A is misunderstanding the argument being made:

The right of people to firearms is guaranteed under 2A. The firearms themselves have no rights. Firearms are regulated in the US, like it or not. The judge is basically saying that, considering the GCA's serialization requirement, a gun without a serial number ought to be regarded in a similar manner to a sawed off shotgun or a switchblade.

A gun without a serial number could be argued to have a feature that has purpose without merit to lawful intent: Being untraceable after a crime. And that includes the crime of gun theft, which is why most guns get the serial number removed.


That's my opinion of what is going on, not whether anyone should like it or that I am in favor of it. Keep this in mind as you flip out.

 

[RX-79G]

..

 

[Yarome]

Saying that a gun with no serial number isn't a firearm under 2A is misunderstanding the argument being made:

The right of people to firearms is guaranteed under 2A. The firearms themselves have no rights. Firearms are regulated in the US, like it or not. The judge is basically saying that, considering the GCA's serialization requirement, a gun without a serial number ought to be regarded in a similar manner to a sawed off shotgun or a switchblade.

A gun without a serial number could be argued to have a feature that has purpose without merit to lawful intent: Being untraceable after a crime.


That's my opinion of what is going on, not whether anyone should like it or that I am in favor of it. Keep this in mind as you flip out.

He was pretty clear. To repeat: ""...the court concluded that firearms with obliterated serial numbers are not within the class of firearms typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The court also finds that firearms with an obliterated serial number---like the one Defendant is accused of possessing---are dangerous and unusual weapons and, therefore, not within the scope of the Second Amendment's guarantee."

In layman's terms. A firearm with an obliterated serial number is not something commonly owned by many people (fails the common use test) so it is therefore both "dangerous" AND "unusual"... so excluded from the protections of the 2A.

He is citing 922(k), part of title 18... passed in 1970.

Did he go into further detail later stating his opinion on how those types of firearms "should" be classified and regulated under which statute? (I didn't read every page).

 

[wired]

I haven't seen any. Seems like the foreign AK market isn't there? American AKs are all the rage these days, gosh that sounds weird to say.

Unless they are going after all parts being imported, that would make sense. Remove the ability to get inexpensive parts could hurt some companies. Not that I'm really knowledgeable of what companies might be importing parts for use on US made receivers, if that's even a thing. I don't really know the rules and regs on gun manufacturing to what % needs to be American made to qualify as American made.

The more I learn about things "made" in the states the more I'm disappointed to learn that a ton of the product was made elsewhere and essentially "assembled" in the states.

Theres lots of kits. The importers just figured out they can sell less of them for more money and still make the same amount. Bringing in tons of cheapo Romanian kits costs them more to process, demil etc and it just tanks the price. Race to the bottom sort of thing. They make more bringing in a cut up Russian kit and marking it up 2000% . Whole parts sets from Poland and other countries but they don't give them away any more.

922r states that 0ver 50% of 20 potential parts in a rifle have to be made in the US for it to be considered US made. Theres a master list that most guns dont have all of the parts but the parts count of foreign parts cant be over 10. Its a cheesy way to do it that is based on the way they determine the country of origin of cars for tax purposes. You could potentially have a gun assembled overseas with very few US made parts be considered US made.

 

[RX-79G]

He was pretty clear. To repeat: ""...the court concluded that firearms with obliterated serial numbers are not within the class of firearms typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The court also finds that firearms with an obliterated serial number---like the one Defendant is accused of possessing---are dangerous and unusual weapons and, therefore, not within the scope of the Second Amendment's guarantee."

In layman's terms. A firearm with an obliterated serial number is not something commonly owned by many people (fails the common use test) so it is therefore both "dangerous" AND "unusual"... so excluded from the protections of the 2A.

He is citing 922(k), part of title 18... passed in 1970.

Did he go into further detail later stating his opinion on how those types of firearms "should" be classified and regulated under which statute? (I didn't read every page).

Yep. He's saying that the right to firearms are protected, but that doesn't mean every firearm. Especially one that has been modified to hide its history.

That doesn't seem any more outlandish than requiring a serial number in the first place for commerce guns.


You can always complain that any law, regulation, requirement or even consumer protection is a violation, but if you're going to do that, why bother complaining about the specifics of 922(k)?

 

[CamoDeafie]

There is a legal argument that I don't think has been adequately discussed..


So the argument goes that firearms whose serial numbers have been obliterated aren't "protected by the 2A" but the problem I can see is that... the exact same firearms with intact serial numbers... are protected by 2A...

Now the legal argument is based on Heller. If an entire class of firearms are in common use/commonly possessed for lawful purposes then they are 2A protected, regardless of their legal status. In this, it is the act of destroying the serial that is the crime, and not protected by 2A, but the firearm itself is protected by 2A.

 

[Yarome]

There is a legal argument that I don't think has been adequately discussed..

So the argument goes that firearms whose serial numbers have been obliterated aren't "protected by the 2A" but the problem I can see is that... the exact same firearms with intact serial numbers... are protected by 2A...

Now the legal argument is based on Heller. If an entire class of firearms are in common use/commonly possessed for lawful purposes then they are 2A protected, regardless of their legal status. In this, it is the act of destroying the serial that is the crime, and not protected by 2A, but the firearm itself is protected by 2A.

Hence... the absolute lunacy in the judges "learned" opinion. A serial number does not change the characterists of the firearm. It does not make it more lethal, convert it into something else or affect how it operates in any way.

What he's basically doing is trying to bastardize the common use test. Firearms without serial numbers are not commonly owned so the 2A doesn't apply. Well... neither are pink hello kitty painted AR's. So???? You going to go tell @solv3nt his rifle is illegal and must be surrendered to the alphabets??

Good luck with that.

 

[Flopsweat]

There is a legal argument that I don't think has been adequately discussed..


So the argument goes that firearms whose serial numbers have been obliterated aren't "protected by the 2A" but the problem I can see is that... the exact same firearms with intact serial numbers... are protected by 2A...

Now the legal argument is based on Heller. If an entire class of firearms are in common use/commonly possessed for lawful purposes then they are 2A protected, regardless of their legal status. In this, it is the act of destroying the serial that is the crime, and not protected by 2A, but the firearm itself is protected by 2A.

I like that. By that logic, it would still be legal to own a firearm with a defaced serial number, but not to do the defacing.

A simpler view might be that they are being petty, a firearm is no more or less dangerous when there are numbers on it, and they should find something more productive to do with the time we pay them for.

 

[RX-79G]

Now the legal argument is based on Heller. If an entire class of firearms are in common use/commonly possessed for lawful purposes then they are 2A protected, regardless of their legal status. In this, it is the act of destroying the serial that is the crime, and not protected by 2A, but the firearm itself is protected by 2A.

The argument is basically saying that obliterated serial number guns ARE a class of firearm. There don't seem to be any formal classes of firearms defined by law (cowboy gun, sniper rifle, hunting rifle), so saying that a grouping of guns is defined by how they have been modified is no less valid.

 

[RX-79G]

What he's basically doing is trying to bastardize the common use test. Firearms without serial numbers are not commonly owned so the 2A doesn't apply. Well... neither are pink hello kitty painted AR's. So????

If this is about 922(k), I don't know why you're bringing up homemade guns.

But guns are regulated under the commerce act, not the national endowment for the arts. So serial numbers are pertinent, while graphics are not. Firearms are regulated by their functional characteristics and the manner in which they are traded.

 

[Stomper]

Uh boy....

A district court judge in Colorado has made a ruling that non serialized firearms are considered dangerous and unusual (not commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes) so the 922k statute (prohibiting possession of a non serialized or obliterated serial number firearm) that was recently ruled as unconstitutional is not in fact unconstitutional in this case since non serialized firearms are not "arms" under the 2A protection.

I kid you not! From the court ruling:

"...the court concluded that firearms with obliterated serial numbers are not within the class of firearms typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The court also finds that firearms with an obliterated serial number---like the one Defendant is accused of possessing---are dangerous and unusual weapons and, therefore, not within the scope of the Second Amandment's guarantee."

"In sum, the Court holds that the kinds of firearms 922(k) prohibits are not "Arm" within the meaning of the Second Amendment, and as a consequence Defendant's constitutional challenge to this statutory provision fails."

"Because the Court finds that 922(k) does not impact arms covered by the Second Amendment, it need not take up the separate issue of whether it is in accord with country's history and tradition of regulated firearms."

The full ruling if anyone's interested: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cr-00224/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cr-00224-0.pdf

Granted the defendant in the case is a sleezeball and deserves to be nailed to the wall, but the judges logic and understanding of the law is deeply troubling.

Even if non serialized firearms were "not" protected, that still doesn't make 922k any more constitutional since the statute was created in the 70's(?) with no historical tradition requiring firearms to be serialized. The statute itself has no provision addressing 2A protected vs. non 2A protected firearms and would be null and void in whole.

That's kind of like saying an assault weapon ban that was thrown out for being unconstitutional is still valid and good law as it applies against NFA items. Isn't it??

His ruling fails, backward, forwards or any which way you look at it.

The DF obviously has NO IDEA how many completed 80% lowers are out there…….